A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, fixed Jan. 6, for ruling in a bail application filed by Olamide Thomas, who allegedly threatened Seyi Tinubu with death threat on social media.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after T.J. Aondo, who appeared for Thomas, and lawyer to the prosecution, Victor Okoye, made their submissions for and against the bail application.
Upon resumed hearing, Okoye told the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the bail application and that he had filed and served his counter affidavit on the applicant’s lawyer.
Moving the bail motion, Aondo said the application, dated Dec. 20, was served on same date.
He said it was brought pursuant to the 1999 Constitution and Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
The lawyer said the application prayed the court for an order admitting Thomas to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge before the court.
He urged the court to admit his client to bail on liberal terms, assuring that she would not jump bail.
But Okoye, who said a counter affidavit was filed on Dec. 30, prayed the court to refuse Thomas bail application.
Okoye equally urged the court to discountenance the exhibits attached to the bail request.
He argued that the documents were extracted from the internet in contradiction with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
He further argued that any newspaper publication sought to be rendered in court ought to be certified by the National Library.
“We submit that those printouts are not worth admitting as evidence,” he said.
Okoye also argued that Thomas claimed that she was suffering from an ailment without attaching any medical report.
He urged the court to discountenance the submission.
But Aondo interjected, arguing that Okoye cannot orally speak on Thomas ill-health, having failed to state this in their counter affifavit.
The senior lawyer also argued that the entire affidavit filed by the prosecution did not meet the requirements of Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
He cited Paragraph 17 of the affidavit which he said equally fell short of Section 115 of Evidence Act.
He said the prosecution argument cannot stop the court from exercising its discretionary power under Section 6(6) of the constitution to grant his client bail.
He said the power of the court to admit the defendant to bail cannot even be premised on her production of medical report, citing Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Also citing a Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of newspaper publications, Aondo argued that an affidavit presumed to be on oath is already certified.
He said the prosecution did not raised any issue on whether Thomas will not escape if granted bail.
Aondo, therefore, prayed the court to exercise its discretionary power in favour of Thomas.
Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Jan. 6, 2025 for ruling.
The judge, who hinted that the case file would be remitted back to the chief judge after the ruling, said his duty as vacation judge would end on the date.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Thomas was, on Dec. 20, arraigned and remanded at Suleja Correctional Centre after she pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge preferred against her by the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police.
Thomas was arrested on allegations bordering on harassing and threatening Seyi Tinubu; the I-G, Kayode Egbetokun and the Police Public Relations Officer, Muyiwa Adejobi, in a viral social media post
In the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/636/2024 dated and filed on Dec 18 by the police team of lawyers led by A.A. Egwu, Olamide was sued as sole defendant.
NAN reports that in count one, Olamide was alleged to have, sometime in 2024, knowingly and intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording through computer system or network on her social media platforms wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language.
In the video, she was alleged to have stated “that Mr Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity had befallen the Tinubu family, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Seyi Tinubu.”
The communication was said to have placed Seyi in fear of death, violence or bodily harm.
The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
In count two, the defendant was alleged to have intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Egbetokun.
The communication was said to have placed Egbetokun in fear of death, violence or bodily harm.
The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
In count three, Olamide was accused of intentionally transmitting or causing the transmission of communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language, stating that the children of Adejobi would all die before his eyes.
She was quoted to have also said that “he (Adejobi) will bury all his children in a single day, with Intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi.”
The communication was said to have placed Adejobi in fear of death of his loved ones.
The offence is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.(NAN)
